I don't understand why this sentiment is so prevalent in America. Maybe, it is because of how powerful the America government is and what it has shown it is capable of. With that being said, what is the solution in regulating the power the state has so it isn't misused and tyranny is largely prevented.

It's partly tradition (we were founded via an armed revolution, after all), and partly sound democratic governing. To the extent which it de-monopolizes the tools of violent force, even symbolically, it empowers the people (one of the great touchstones of our ideals) and that decentralization of power engenders stability. Kind of a cross between John-Waynesian swagger and distributed network dynamics.

I don't get the whole protect yourself from the government thing either. That sounds crazy to be honest. But I hate the idea of not being able to protect myself from someone who breaks in and tries to rob me. If they have a gun, and all I have is a knife, then I'm dead.

You definitely have a right to protect your own life but there should be reasonable limits. So, it should be about how we put those limits in place. There are scenarios where if you exceed self defense that you would be opening up to criminal charges.

Who defines what a "reasonable limit" is? At what point in a such a horrible situation is it "reasonable" to just give up and die?

I'd say the limits are already mostly in place, i.e., it's not legal to pre-emptively kill people you think are dangerous (unless you're the CIA).

I don't get the whole protect yourself from the government thing either. That sounds crazy to be honest. But I hate the idea of not being able to protect myself from someone who breaks in and tries to rob me. If they have a gun, and all I have is a knife, then I'm dead.

Not necessarily. You can throw knives. Or sneak up behind him or something.

Not necessarily. You can throw knives. Or sneak up behind him or something.

Throwing knives is something that takes practice, hell, the average person doesn't even know how to fight with a knife. Sneaking up on him is the best option without a gun, but more likely, if all I have is a knife, I'll be dead. Depends on whether the person is actually prepared to kill someone, though. I still don't like the odds.

This. No way I'd feel safe with random people carrying concealed guns in public.

Let me guess since I don't feel safe I should get a gun too right?

I guarantee if you live in Texas that you walk past dozens of people carrying concealed guns every day and don't even know it.

Since it is a state by state issue there is no national data, but some people in Kansas did a study on the crime rate for CCW permit holders in their state.

Of the 51,078 permits issued since 2007, 44 of them had been arrested while carrying their gun. Of those 44, only 17 were convicted of a crime which resulted in them losing their permits. This works out to a violent crime rate of .09%

Compare that to nearly .5% for the general population and it turns out the average citizen is 555% more likely to commit a violent crime than a concealed carry permit holder.

I guarantee if you live in Texas that you walk past dozens of people carrying concealed guns every day and don't even know it.

Since it is a state by state issue there is no national data, but some people in Kansas did a study on the crime rate for CCW permit holders in their state.

Of the 51,078 permits issued since 2007, 44 of them had been arrested while carrying their gun. Of those 44, only 17 were convicted of a crime which resulted in them losing their permits. This works out to a violent crime rate of .09%

Compare that to nearly .5% for the general population and it turns out the average citizen is 555% more likely to commit a violent crime than a concealed carry permit holder.

Thanks for showing everybody what a moron you are. Automatic weapons have been banned for over 25 years.

Edit: Isn't it wonderful how we are trying to have a national debate on gun control and yet the majority of people have no fcking clue what they are talking about? They don't even pretend to be informed, they just talk straight out of their asshole.

Unless they were built before 1986, as I understand it. And the technology hasn't changed much; a Vietnam-era M60 still works like new if you take care of it.

I posted on the front page, it varies from state to state. In Texas to be eligible must have a clean record and no mental health issues. Then you must complete a 10-15 hour course run by a Department of Public Safety official which consists of a written test and a shooting practical at a shooting range. You have to score 70% on both tests to qualify.

I think that's actually one of the strongest arguments in favor of Second Amendment rights. Why does anyone else, especially elected officials, get to dictate the extent to which I'm allowed to protect my own life?

The second amendment says absolutely nothing about individual use of guns, instead merely for purposes of a mlitia. The meaning has evolved over time as politicians have needed to justify it for special interests.

Let me restate what I meant in the OP. I don't think that it's BS that Americans have the right under the current law to arm themselves in their home or even outside.

My point was that this argument, this line is being used to justify any and all avoidance on reasonable and healthy debate on how to improve the system we live in now. I'm saying that it's a bullshit argument for cases such as opposing background checks, closing loopholes, or even endorsing concealed weapons on college campuses.

Speaking of the college campus thing...this thing has been tried many times to be made a law here in Texas. I think it's pretty damn frightening. I don't care if a person is 21...they are still a kid in terms of judgement and temperament. Imagine the rise in suicide rates as well, not to mention personal feuds, accidental shootings,etc

For the record these are my views:

Guns are a way of American life, it's impossible to remove them.

There are means to make legal guns in the hands of safer people.

There is no way to stop crime from guns completely. Nothing can do that. But there are measures that can reduce this.

I'm in favor of all background checks, close gun show loopholes, national registry, tougher sanctions on irresponsible owners, and mental health research and development.

Throwing knives is something that takes practice, hell, the average person doesn't even know how to fight with a knife. Sneaking up on him is the best option without a gun, but more likely, if all I have is a knife, I'll be dead. Depends on whether the person is actually prepared to kill someone, though. I still don't like the odds.

The second amendment says absolutely nothing about individual use of guns, instead merely for purposes of a mlitia. The meaning has evolved over time as politicians have needed to justify it for special interests.

What? When do you ever see teams of people using one gun. Especially the guns they had back when they wrote the constitution. A cannon maybe, but a handgun? A rifle? Most of the Constitution is about individual liberties; it establishes and preserves them to save the outnumbered from mob rule. That's why we don't have a true, direct democracy. Even if 299,000,000 Americans were against my First Amendment Rights, I'm still protected. At least in theory. Obviously we can amend the Constitution if we want, but it's tough, and I imagine the Bill of Rights is fairly safe. At least until the very concept of the Nation-State is dissolved in favor of the open-source/open-access, transparent Global Village, which is probably well underway. But even then I'd imagine a type of voluntary libertarianism that preserves individual autonomy would be the most stable system of organization moving forward.

Quote:

My point was that this argument, this line is being used to justify any and all avoidance on reasonable and healthy debate on how to improve the system we live in now. I'm saying that it's a bullshit argument for cases such as opposing background checks, closing loopholes, or even endorsing concealed weapons on college campuses.

I agree. There's more we could be doing that we aren't, but special interests and political gamesmanship make progress slow.

Quote:

Speaking of the college campus thing...this thing has been tried many times to be made a law here in Texas. I think it's pretty damn frightening. I don't care if a person is 21...they are still a kid in terms of judgement and temperament. Imagine the rise in suicide rates as well, not to mention personal feuds, accidental shootings,etc

I was reading somewhere that the Japanese have unbelievable suicide rates. Maybe it's a good thing that they don't get any guns. Then again, maybe they're killing themselves because they feel imasculated by a government that doesn't trust them with guns.

Quote:

Guns are a way of American life, it's impossible to remove them.

Nothing's impossible, but this would certainly be difficult. First we'd have to ascertain whether it would be desirable or worth it.

Quote:

There are means to make legal guns in the hands of safer people.

Sure.

Quote:

There is no way to stop crime from guns completely. Nothing can do that. But there are measures that can reduce this.

That's not true. If there were no guns anywhere, no one would get shot, because there would be nothing to shoot them with. But, like I said, difficult to achieve, and maybe not worth the costs in time, money, and effort.

Quote:

I'm in favor of all background checks, close gun show loopholes, national registry, tougher sanctions on irresponsible owners, and mental health research and development.

Sure, but we really have to stop scapegoating the mentally ill. Just like gun advocates don't want peaceful, law-abiding citizens punished for the crimes of a few, we shouldn't cast blankets of disparagement on the mentally ill. Again, just like the majority of gun owners never do anything wrong with their guns, the majority of people who suffer from any of the myriad conditions that fall under the umbrella of "mental illness" never display any violent tendencies, and the majority of those that do are only a danger to themselves. They deserve compassion, understanding, and advancing medical science to help them, not to be vilified.